Real Whitby - A Community Website For You the Community

NYCC Election Preview – Cllr Mike COCKERILL

The Free Dictionary defines the term ‘Double dipping’ in the following way:

Double dipping

n.

– The practice of receiving compensation, benefits, etc, from two or more sources in a way regarded as unethical, as from a government pension and a government job.

Surely, the term is applicable to the act of accepting two separate Allowances (‘compensation, benefits, etc’), from two distinct ‘sources’ (NYCC and SBC), in respect of the one single expenditure arising from the fee contingent upon a single Broadband connection?

Cllr Mike COCKERILL is standing as an Independent member

Cllr Mike COCKERILL is an elected member of North Yorkshire County Council

Cllr Mike COCKERILL is an elected member of Scarborough Borough Council

Cllr Mike COCKERILL is a member of the SBC Cabinet – a Portfolio-Holder

Cllr Mike COCKERILL received £500+per annum from NYCC for IT/Broadband

Cllr Mike COCKERILL received £255per annum from SBC for IT/Broadband

Cllr Mike COCKERILL has refused to pay back the excess money

Cllr Mike COCKERILL believes he is fully entitled to receive two lots of IT/Broadband allowances, when he actually pays out only a fraction of that £750+ per annum (perhaps one-third)

Cllr Mike COCKERILL attended one or more NYCC Council meetings where the IT/Broadband Allowance terms and conditions were discussed, so he cannot claim to be unaware of his opportunity to have ‘renunciated’ his extra payment (like out-going Coumcillor Herbert TINDALL)

Cllr Mike COCKERILL was last elected on 04/06/2009 and sits in the Filey division

Cllr Mike COCKERILL is standing in forthcoming NYCC elections in the Filey division

Cllr Mike COCKERILL is Chair of the unsuccessful Whitby Harbour Board

Cllr Mike COCKERILL signed up to Nigel’s Transparency Pledge, then immediately broke it.

All of the double-dipping NYCC/SBC Councillors were exonerated by the Standards Committees, the only dissenting voice being that of SBC Councillor Colin CHALLEN, who stated (on the Scarbrorough and Whitby Labour Party website):

“Another issue which emerged out of this hearing was that a County Council official appears to have provided at least four of the eight members with a paragraph long statement which those members then used in response to the County Council’s own investigating officer’s inquiries. This would be like a detective providing you with the answer to his own questions, and clearly this has muddied the essential independence of the officer – councillor relationship. It is a matter which warrants further investigation.”

Councillor Colin CHALLEN also stated:

“The simple solution would have been for the Committee to suggest to the members involved that if they thought that the identifiable sums paid (I won’t go into the arcane details of how the sum is calculated and paid) were excessive, then the difference could be repaid.”

Former West Yorkshire Police Detective Inspector Cedric CHRISTIE of the WYP Major Fraud Division has expressed the following opinion:

“Claiming twice for something like broadband is just the same as claiming mileage from two different authorities for the same journey. If I was investigating these circumstances I would consider a case of fraud by false representation under Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006.”

County Councillor Mike COCKERILL has been offered an opportunity to comment by the Corruption Busters, not later than 5:00pm today, Tuesday 9th April 2013.

County Councillor Mike COCKERILL has not offered a comment for publication.

Presumably his commitment to ‘transparency’ does not extend to a clear explanation of his conduct for electors to consider before they visit the Polling Stations.

Meanwhile, the public record shows that County Councillor Mike COCKERILL, in his capacity as a Scarborough Borough Councillor and Portfolio-Holder, attended a SBC Cabinet Meeting on 26th March 2013, at which the matter of the Council instigating legal action against Real Whitby and the Corruption Busters was discussed, during the exclusion of press and public.

County Councillor Mike COCKERILL,as one of those severely criticised in Real Whitby and Private Eye, clearly had a disclosable personal and prejudicial interest in the matter, but failed to declare that interest. Doing so would have disbarred him from taking part in the discussion, for reasons of conflicted interest. Thus, he has wittingly and unlawfully attempted to use the power entrusted to him to attempt to achieve the advantage (gain) of securing the Council’s legal resources to protect him from the natural consequences of his own actions. That is a corrupt act.

A Formal Complaint has been lodged, by a member of the public.

He is, of course, not the only double dipping County Councillor to have adopted this course.

The comments section of this article is intended to be a place of public record of the work, good or bad, that this Councillor has done on behalf of the public.

Please post only factual comments relating to County Councillor Mike COCKERILL’s past conduct, in your true electoral name, so the public can judge if County Councillor Mike COCKERILL is worthy of re-election.

11 Comments

Anoter question.
.. received £500+ per annum from NYCC for IT/Broadband
.. received £255 per annum from SBC for IT/Broadband
So why, according to councillors, does it cost almost twice as much for broadband, for county councillors, when they use the same providers ?
We live in a heirarchical society, central government can intervene at lower levels of government. So can the county council intervene in lower levels of government.
So why have county councillors awarded themselves over almost double the amount that local councillors receive ? When the most simple and straightforwards method is to let all councillors submit their actual costing for broadband.
Is the amount only for broadband costs, not to buy computers or other equipment.

The NYCC allowance was in the past not so excessive, but they’ve failed to keep the allowance in check with current prices, thus the allowance is much, much higher than most.

Cllrs do not have to purchase their own equipment. NYCC and SBC provide all the kit they need to perform their rile. I believe some do purchase ink and paper for the printers, but other Cllrs say they get these free from County of Town Hall.

Publically considered a very very rude man who almost single handedly ruined Whitby Harbour Board. To the point where I fear Whitby will loose control of it’s fabulous Harbour and place control back into the hands of Scarborough Borough Council. What can be going through a mans mind when he accepts £750 for a broadband connection costing approx a third of that. Not once BUT EACH & EVERY YEAR he serves as a Scarborough Borough Councillor and a North Yorkshire County Councillor. I suspect most councillors already have Broadband connection into their homes which is why honest councillors do not accept any publc money for Braodband connection. Let’s support HONEST & POLITE councillors this coming NYCC election.

It’s strange and typical of SOME councillors. They are elected then are overcome with apathey. This then manifests and the mindset becomes that of “well if you only knew how much work and running around I do for what I get”……….. YOU wanted to become a councillor. If you did so in the belief that it would provide EXTRA income because you are retired, or extra income on top of your government or private pension, or Disability Living Allowance then I’m affraid you are in the wrong job for the wrong reasons. Quit the council, end of and don’t stand again. We need dedicated councillors, those who do not stand with the mindset that it will improve your lifestyle because of financial gain or PERKS.
If you think councillors should receive more income for what they do then that’s OK, campaign and put your case forward. But don’t cheat the system just because you can get away with it. Cheating is stealing in the eyes of most people. You know who you are.

My information is that County Councillor Mike COCKERILL has expressed the view that the matter of the unnecessary overpayment of Broadband/IT Allowances (say, circa £500 per annum) could still, even at this late stage, be resolved honourably – by offering to donate the money to a Charity of either the double-dipping Councillors’ own respective choices, or perhaps one nominated by the Corruption Busters.

The same source (within the Borough Council) tells me that Cllr COCKERILL was prevailed upon by the other (mostly Conservative) double-dippers to shut up and hold the line at all costs, at least until after the County elections on 2nd May 2013.

My own view is that Cllr COCKERILL would do well to be guided solely by his own conscience and do what is so obviously the right thing – whether his fellow elected members have that much integrity or not.

My best advice would be this: Donate or repay the money, Mike. The entire electorate will respect you for your fundamental decency. If it shows others in a bad light, they should look to their own consciences – and not expect you to burden your own conscience on their unworthy accounts.

Why not select a worthy cause in your own division – Filey? I am sure the Fight 4 Filey Group could offer some suggestions.

Publically considered a very very rude man who almost single handedly ruined Whitby Harbour Board. To the point where I fear Whitby will loose control of it’s fabulous Harbour and place control back into the hands of Scarborough Borough Council. What can be going through a mans mind when he accepts £750 for a broadband connection costing approx a third of that. Not once BUT EACH & EVERY YEAR he serves as a Scarborough Borough Councillor and a North Yorkshire County Councillor. I suspect most councillors already have Broadband connection into their homes which is why honest councillors do not accept any publc money for Braodband connection. Let’s support HONEST & POLITE councillors this coming NYCC election.

Nigel, the over use of bold makes the article very uneasy on the eye, you will loose people as soon as they look at it. Keep it simple, dont use bold everywhere and dont use all capitals. It looks dreadful and has been proven to loose the reader before they even start.